Sunday, January 26, 2014


As I was saying yesterday, most of the time, all I have to do is go to sleep and in the morning another Neo has left a comment which affords me "another opportunity to allow the Neocats to impugn themselves with their own words."

In yesterday's case, I got a two-fer, as the same Anonymous Neo left a reply to my reply to his comment (follow that?)  It's a long comment, so we'll take it one paragraph at a time:
Thank you for allowing a post of my own. At any rate, I didn't go to that website because they oppose post-Vatican II. I went to it simply because of the photos they have of the altar, and in my last post, that is where I directed your attention to. The altar is the same altar that the Neocatechumenal Way uses. There is no cross on the altar, but the cross is beside the lectern, and the Pope was celebrating Mass on that altar.
As mentioned, the "website" referenced by our commenter regularly knocks the NCW, and the particular picture referenced, featured a rather mocking caption: Pope John Paul II celebrating a "NEOCAT WAY" Mass! So as I said: "No intelligent Neocat in his right mind would want to send anyone to this blog", and my observation still stands.

Anonymous Neo then refers to the table as an altar. Either he's not an attentive Neo or he's using the word altar to mask what the Neo really teaches:
We Christians do not have altars...because the holy stone is Christ, the only cornerstone. That's why we can celebrate the Eucharist on a suitable table and we can celebrate in a square, in the countryside or wherever it is suitable. We don't have a particular place where exclusively we should celebrate our worship. ("Kiko's Catechism," Vol. 1, pgs 51-52)
Here of course we see not only why the Neo eschews the idea of celebrating the Mass on a consecrated altar, which the Catechism says is the symbol of Christ himself (CCC 1383), but abandons the church building altogether, in direct contradiction to Canon Law of course:
Can.  932 §1. The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in such a case the celebration must be done in a decent place. §2. The eucharistic sacrifice must be carried out on a dedicated or blessed altar...
The Code goes on to direct how the "eucharistic sacrifice" is to be offered when not offered on a dedicated or blessed altar, but of course the condition of when "necessity requires" has already been established. But then Church law to Kiko is what the Constitution is to Obama, isn't it.

Anonymous Neo goes on:
I agree with your comparison of the Way's altar to the Pope kissing the Qu'ran. You see, the Pope was making a point to the Muslim world. What he did silenced the entire Muslim world because not one of their imans or mullahs had the courage to kiss the Holy Bible. In the same way, the Pope celebrating Mass on the Way's altar was also making a point. The focus should always be on the body and blood of Christ on the altar, not on the candles, the flowers, the altar coverings, or even the cross. The focus is always on the body and blood because that is Christ's REAL body and blood. So, why are you looking around at where they put the cross?

Ummm, maybe because the GENERAL INSTRUCTION TO THE ROMAN MISSAL REQUIRES IT (GIRM 308)? But then again, what is church law to Kiko? These are just "external matters". But also notice that Anonymous Neo defaults to calling it a "cross". Notice that I had asked where is the crucifix? The GIRM does not require a cross to be on or near the altar but a CRUCIFIX: ...there is to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, a cross clearly visible to the assembled people. (But, then again, these are just "external matters"!)

Also notice the word "visible" and see the VERY VISIBLE crucifix upon the altar at which Pope Francis is celebrating the "eucharistic sacrifice." I used the words "eucharistic sacrifice" again here because those words are particularly grating to the Neocats, whose "pope" rejects the idea that the eucharist is a sacrifice.

It's a bit difficult for Kiko to dance around it and still play nice with the Vatican, since the church clearly defines the Eucharist as a "sacrifice" (CCC 1360), so Kiko has to add a qualifier:
But in this period sacrifice is understood much more in a pagan way than in a Christian one. (Kiko's Catechism, Vol 1, pg. 349)
The "period" Kiko refers to is the Middle Ages, supposedly the bane of authentic Christianity. On the previous page, Kiko tries to make his case for refuting the idea of sacrifice by mixing up animal sacrifice (which is why he says "pagan way"), with the celebration of the Eucharist, and to do so, he craftily erects a "middle-aged" straw man: the middle ages people began to argue about sacrifice, some of them would argue about things that had a very different meaning in the primitive Eucharist. 
In pagan religion sacrifice, "sacrum facere," "to do what is sacred," is to propitiate the divinity through sacrifices of animals or of things. This is not the meaning of sacrifice, neither in Christianity nor in the Eucharist. (Kiko's Catechism, Vol 1., pg. 348)
Alas, poor St. Francis and St. Benedict, they were so confused, not having Kiko to enlighten them.

Anonymous Neo continues:
As for the statutes, it appears that you are fussing over the altar being at the center of the church, when it states: This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the "MANNER of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books." 
The manner in which the Way had been distributing the body and blood of Christ in the past was by sitting down. This is what has changed. Those in the Way are following the Statues in that the manner in which they are now receiving the body and blood of Christ is by standing up. God bless.
Ah, you see, we are "fussing".  Never mind that the GIRM also requires that the altar should be "fixed and dedicated" (GIRM 299), but beyond that, Anonymous Neo actually believes that the manner in which "those in the Way" receive communion comports with their Statute when they stand to "receive".

If by "receiving the body" you mean immediately consume - as required by the liturgical books: As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it (GIRM 161); then Anonymous Neo would be correct. But of course Neo communicants DO NOT consume "the whole of it" as "soon as the communicant receives the host." They sit down while still holding it, and at least in one community in Agana, they chat it up with their neighbors with the Body of Christ still in their hands.

It is here that we see the NCW, or at least its leadership, at its most insolent. The NCW leaders have taken the word "receive" and reinterpreted it (think Tower of Babel) it to fit their end. Imagine a wide receiver in football, whose job it is to "receive" the football from the quarterback, and upon catching it, just stands there. The only reason to catch the football is to get that football into the end zone ASAP.

What else can we say, such insolence and brazen disobedience is why you are increasingly seen as a parallel church with your own magisterium. The fact that Archbishop Apuron has championed your errors is an EXTREMELY GRAVE MATTER, and the fact that he has persecuted priests like Father Paul, who have stood up to those errors is EVEN GRAVER.

I look forward to more material.


  1. Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Agana, Guam, said the entire church should consider adopting some of the Way's liturgical practices, including restoring "the 'breadness' of the bread," by using the "unleavened bread used in the ancient and primitive church rather than the wafer-thin, mass-produced bread we use as hosts for our people today."

  2. Sorry incomplete statement from Apuron. So here is the full text.

    Of course we need to recognize that there can be problems of understanding of some members as well.

    Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Agana, Guam, said the entire church should consider adopting some of the Way's liturgical practices, including restoring "the 'breadness' of the bread," by using the "unleavened bread used in the ancient and primitive church rather than the wafer-thin, mass-produced bread we use as hosts for our people today."

    And, he said, when a priest carries the Eucharist to people who are seated, it fosters more of a sense of community.

    "What sort of a banquet does one go to which requires you to stand rather than sit?" Archbishop Apuron asked.

    Conversely, the Apostle Paul has said in 1 Cor 11:

    20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
    23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
    27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
    33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

    So, assuming Archbishop Apuron has not been quoted out of context, it seems he is making a statement that is problematic. It is not a banquet in the literal sense. it is coming together to receive the Lord

  3. - H.E. Most. Rev. Anthony Sablan APURON, O.F.M. CAP., Archbishop of Agaña, President of the Episcopal Conference (GUAM)

    In the Pacific, the scarcity of priests and the aggressiveness of the evangelistic sects are challenging the very survival of the Catholic faith. In my experience, the only answer to this double predicament is to "form communities based on faith, "as Pope Benedict told the youth in Cologne. Our Holy Father also told the youth that "the power of the gospel is keenly felt" in small communities of faith.
    Today, the Church needs to make clearly visible the signs of the Eucharist: maybe the Church needs to restore the "breadness" of the bread which becomes the Body of Christ to be eaten by all and wine drunk by all which becomes the Blood of Christ. These signs fully and powerfully represent the reality that they signify and not just approximate them. Moreover, if the Eucharist is a banquet, the proper posture when the people are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is seated, not standing! (Instrumentum Laboris. Nos.
    The “Kiss of Peace,” should take place just before the preparation of the gifts and before the Anaphora begins as a conclusion of the Liturgy ofthe Word, rather than before the
    fractio panis. Otherwise, the forgiveness signified in the Kiss of Peace and the reverence due the fractio panis both lose their impact while people exchange the 'Kiss of peace.' All of this can be implemented in a meaningful and reverential way through proper catechesis.
    In my experience with communities of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, I have witnessed a remarkable growth in faith in the lives of thousands of people, of families, including the youth, who love the Church and have reverence and love for the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
    I urge leaders of the Church, today, to do everything possible to help people come to really know Jesus Christ through the signs of the Eucharist and the reality they signify.

    1. Yes. All wonderful. Permission was granted to move the "Kiss of Peace". Permission was not granted to not consume the host immediately and to consume it sitting. But how sad that the Archbishop, after 400 years of Catholicism, could not "form communities based on faith", and blames the collapse of the local church on the "evangelical sects". The enemy is within.